I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

That video is not an explanation of the mechanism I am asking you about.

This video explains how reality is derived from and returns to its unified substance, where techniques like Transcendental Meditation actually open one's mind to directly be aware of the unified substance of all possible expressions, first, only during meditation, and then also during daily activity.

Moreover, it shows the possible benefits of a brain that is tuned to act right from the unified substance, but as usual, you can't get anything beyond your contradictory (reality is 100% material) AND (we can't be 100% sure of anything) paradigm.

You simply reject the mechanism of the effortless process that is naturally derived from and returns to its unified substance, as happens among all possible expressions including the thoughts' process in your and mine brain (or any other human brain).

As a result you are not actually going to practice techniques like Transcendental Meditation and stuck in your contradictory reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

but no meditator in human history ever discovered, by meditation, the cellular basis of life, the protein-machinery nature of cellular biology, the atomic nature of molecular chemistry, the subatomic structures of the atom, or the quantum field nature of particle physics. So why should anyone expect it to reveal any layers deeper still? Such faith, and such claims, are absurdly misplaced.

Any deep understanding of reality is involved with the ability of the brain to be aware of the substance of things. Techniques like Transcendental Meditation are offered in order to systematically develop this ability in any human brain.

Furthermore, science actually fulfills its goal by research and systematically develop such techniques.

 

[doronshadmi]

I asked you what the transformations are.

The transformations are exactly all the cases that are not the simplest state of existence.

In terms of set, the outer "{" and "}" is defined as the the simplest state of existence, where any possible existing thing that is included as a member between the outer "{" and "}" (such that the outer "{" and "}", is, by definition, not one of its members) is, by definition, some transformation.

So transformations are all the possible existing things between "{" and "}".

Given any (abstract) object which might or might not be a possible transformation, it should either be the case that it belongs to the set of "all possible transformations", or not.

Given any abstract or non-abstract thing that can be a member of some set, this thing is some transformation.

 

[ctamblyn]

The transformations are exactly all the cases that are not the simplest state of existence.

In terms of set, the outer "{" and "}" is defined as the the simplest state of existence, where any possible existing thing that is included as a member between the outer "{" and "}" (such that the outer "{" and "}", is, by definition, not one of its members) is, by definition, some transformation.

So transformations are all the possible existing things between "{" and "}".

Well, you are clearly using set theoretic-sounding terminology in some idiosyncratic way which I don't understand. Regardless, see my earlier post. If your set of transformations really does contain every possible transformation, then the only "state of existence" which is invariant under all of those is probably going to be the empty set.

Why? Because if you really do mean to include every possible transformation, without being willing to impose any restriction whatsoever, then I can select as one possible transformation the function which maps every input to the number 124. The only sets invariant under that are {} and {124}, obviously. For a second transformation, I choose a function which maps every input to the number 125, and the only set invariant under both is then {}.

 

[Myriad]

Yes I recognise these interpretations, but what you're describing here are mental techniques which can be used in exercising and exploring the mind as in Raga Yoga. However you haven't addressed meditation as I see it. Which is little more than the stilling of the self, with no aim, goal, or purpose other than that.

Indeed. I was addressing doronshadmi's claims about meditation. And I fully expect that he will disregard everything I said because I didn't specifically address some particular detail of his precise meditation technique (which of course, he will not reveal).

I have no problem with meditation as a practice. I would suggest, though, that if your particular style has no aim, goal, or purpose, it's best not to claim aims, goals, or purposes (such as mental health benefits or revealing the true nature of existence) for it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, you are clearly using set theoretic-sounding terminology in some idiosyncratic way which I don't understand. Regardless, see my earlier post. If your set of transformations really does contain every possible transformation, then the only "state of existence" which is invariant under all of those is probably going to be the empty set.

Why? Because if you really do mean to include every possible transformation, without being willing to impose any restriction whatsoever, then I can select as one possible transformation the function which maps every input to the number 124. The only sets invariant under that are {} and {124}, obviously. For a second transformation, I choose a function which maps every input to the number 125, and the only set invariant under both is then {}.

The outer "{" and "}" is the simplest abstract or non-abstract existing thing, that, by definition, can't be non-outer "{" and "}", and this state is absolutely invariant.

Everything between the outer "{" and "}" is not absolutely invariant.

 

[Myriad]

Any deep understanding of reality is involved with the ability of the brain to be aware of the substance of things. Techniques like Transcendental Meditation are offered in order to systematically develop this ability in any human brain.

Furthermore, science actually fulfills its goal by research and systematically develop such techniques.

The ability of the brain to be aware of the substance of things is the subject matter of cognitive neuroscience. Progress in understanding have come from the application of neuroanatomy, nonlinear dynamics, neural networks and other modeling of neurological systems, theory of computation, information theory, biochemistry, clinical neurology, and brain imaging technology.

What discoveries in cognitive neuroscience have meditators made by means of meditation?

What studies have established the effectiveness of TM at improving the performance of neuroscientists?

 

[ctamblyn]

The outer "{" and "}" is the simplest abstract or non-abstract existing thing, that, by definition, can't be non-outer "{" and "}", and this state is absolutely invariant.

Everything between the outer "{" and "}" is not absolutely invariant.

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, to be honest, or whether you're making some other point entirely.

 

[Nonpareil]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, to be honest, or whether you're making some other point entirely.

It's another one of those situations where the only possible response is "mu".

On another note, now that I'm finished moving and actually have access to a stable internet connection again, it's good to see that doronshadmi is still here spouting nonsense.

He is my rock in this world.

 

[Belz...]

You really don't understand the complexity of this point of view, do you.

I understand that some people are trying really hard to keep the "soul" even though they claim to not be idealists.

The brain is no different to any other part of the body, as such it does play some part in experience independent of the mind. However I appreciate that if you are of the opinion that the brain and the mind are the same thing, or inseparable, then you will obviously disagree.

Here's another problem you have: it isn't an opinion. We know this to be true.

 

[Belz...]

This video explains how reality is derived from and returns to its unified substance, where techniques like Transcendental Meditation actually open one's mind to directly be aware of the unified substance of all possible expressions, first, only during meditation, and then also during daily activity.

Yes, that's what I said: it doesn't answer my question.

You simply reject the mechanism of the effortless process that is naturally derived from and returns to its unified substance, as happens among all possible expressions including the thoughts' process in your and mine brain (or any other human brain).

Of course I reject it since you are totally unable to A) explain the process B) show that it exists. As such your claim is false on its face. It's not anyone's job to prove or disprove your hypothesis for you.

You lose.

 

[Belz...]

The outer "{" and "}" is the simplest abstract or non-abstract existing thing, that, by definition, can't be non-outer "{" and "}", and this state is absolutely invariant.

Everything between the outer "{" and "}" is not absolutely invariant.

You know, Doron, you didn't have to show so clearly that you have absolutely no idea of what ctamblyn told you.

 

[punshhh]

Indeed. I was addressing doronshadmi's claims about meditation. And I fully expect that he will disregard everything I said because I didn't specifically address some particular detail of his precise meditation technique (which of course, he will not reveal).

I see, I would be interested to know the technique.

I have no problem with meditation as a practice. I would suggest, though, that if your particular style has no aim, goal, or purpose, it's best not to claim aims, goals, or purposes (such as mental health benefits or revealing the true nature of existence) for it.

Agreed, any contemplation regarding meditation should be kept clearly separate to the practice itself, to maintain its stillness.

 

[punshhh]

I understand that some people are trying really hard to keep the "soul" even though they claim to not be idealists.

I reserve judgement on the issue.

Here's another problem you have: it isn't an opinion. We know this to be true.

You say this, but as I have pointed out, there is the aspect of personal subjective experience in a person, which is not adequately explained. It has been observed and described. It's correlate in AI has been described, which I agree with, up to the point of being subjectively aware, which I don't see(due to a lack of life).

This brings me back to my point that life is the critical requirement for consciousness. I know life has been observed and described, but is not fully explained in respect to the emergence of consciousness from chemical activity.

An idealist is quite justified in the absence of these explanations to consider the possibility that being and consciousness may be primary.

 

[realpaladin]

In the thread that is not to be mentioned, this would be the moment where I would start singing "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Lisa, dear Lisa, there's a hole in my bucket..."

 

[Belz...]

I reserve judgement on the issue.

No, you don't.

You say this, but as I have pointed out, there is the aspect of personal subjective experience in a person, which is not adequately explained.

Punshhh, by "not adequately explained", do you mean "I don't like the explanation" ? Because it sounds like you simply dislike the idea that it's entirely brain-based, despite what you otherwise say. Let's try this: what sort of explanation would satisfy you ? I wager that it would be impossible to explain subjective experience in a way that wouldn't have you and Doron and others say "but what's behind all that ?" or "but why ?" or something to that effect.

This brings me back to my point that life is the critical requirement for consciousness.

You have no evidence of this.

An idealist is quite justified in the absence of these explanations to consider the possibility that being and consciousness may be primary.

No, he is not. Just like people are not justified in the absence of an explanation for the mountain exploding to come up with silly explanations like angry gods.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, to be honest, or whether you're making some other point entirely.

What I say is that the concept of set (where a set is an abstract or non-abstract existing thing) is defined by my theory as the simplest state of existence that is not its own member because membership is, by definition, provides more complexity that prevents members from being the simplest state of existence.

The outer existing "{" and "}" that represent the simplest state of existence, is found whether the set is empty or non-empty, for example {} or {124} are both have the simplest state of existence as the invariant aspect of any set, where any possible members are abstract or non-abstract variant existence of it.

Again, given any abstract or non-abstract thing that can be a member of some set, this thing is some transformation.

 

[doronshadmi]

You know, Doron, you didn't have to show so clearly that you have absolutely no idea of what ctamblyn told you.

Wrong again dear Belz...,

ctamblyn's view of the discussed subject still does not comprehend the notion of the simplest state of existence as defined by the outer "{" and "}" , whether it is found among empty or non-empty set.

As a result he still does not comprehend that given any abstract or non-abstract thing that can be a member of some set, this thing is some transformation, or in other words, there is no particular set of all transformations because being (abstract or non-abstract) member is being some transformation.

 

[ctamblyn]

What I say is that the concept of set (where a set is an abstract or non-abstract existing thing) is defined by my theory as the simplest state of existence that is not its own member because membership is, by definition, provides more complexity that prevents members from being the simplest state of existence.

The outer existing "{" and "}" that represent the simplest state of existence, is found whether the set is empty or non-empty, for example {} or {124} are both have the simplest state of existence as the invariant aspect of any set, where any possible members are abstract or non-abstract variant existence of it.

Do you agree with any or all of the following (please at least say yes or no for each one, but elaborate if you feel the need)?

1. The image of the set {124} under the function which maps all inputs to 125 is the set {125}.
2. {124} is not the same set as {125}.
3. The image of the set {} under any function is just {}.
​

Again, given any abstract or non-abstract thing that can be a member of some set, this thing is some transformation.

Since you're using a different definition of "set" than normal, I have to suspect that you're also using a different definition of "transformation". Could you tell me what it is?

 

[doronshadmi]

Of course I reject it since you are totally unable to A) explain the process B) show that it exists. As such your claim is false on its face. It's not anyone's job to prove or disprove your hypothesis for you.

You lose.

Of course you reject it since you are totally avoiding A) Practicing this process B) Directly aware of it by actually practicing it. As such your conclusions have no basis what so ever. It's not anyone's job to practicing this process for you.

All you wish is to talk about X and not actually know X.

I am not interested in your contradictory (reality is 100% material) AND (we can't be 100% sure of anything) paradigm.

Also by your paradigm you do not comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10394095&postcount=727.